Over-the-Counter Hearing Aids Versus Traditional Hearing Aids in Patients With Mild-to-Moderate Hearing Loss: Protocol for a Noninferiority Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the aging of society, the prevalence of hearing loss (HL) is increasing. Currently, approximately 5% of the global population has HL, and this number is projected to reach 7 million by 2050. Although hearing aids (HAs) are the primary treatment for HL, their use is limited by barriers such as high costs and social stigma. To address these limitations, over-the-counter (OTC) HAs have been introduced, but their effectiveness and drawbacks require further investigation. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to conduct a noninferiority randomized controlled trial comparing OTC HAs with traditional HAs to assess the clinical effectiveness of OTC HAs. METHODS: We designed a noninferiority randomized controlled trial comparing OTC HAs and traditional HAs in adults with mild-to-moderate HL. A total of 64 participants (32 per group) will be recruited. Randomization will be performed using block randomization (block sizes of 2 or 4) with an equal allocation ratio. The study will include 2 types of HAs: an OTC HA (Jabra Enhance Pro) and a traditional HA (LiNX Quattro LE561-DRW) by GN ReSound A/S. OTC HAs will be self-fitted using a smartphone app, while traditional HAs will be fitted by a licensed audiologist using the National Acoustics Laboratories-Non-Linear Prescription, second generation. Assessments, including functional gain, real-ear measurement, speech audiometry, and questionnaires, will be conducted at 6-month intervals over the course of 3 visits. Statistical analysis will compare the 2 outcomes, focusing on functional gain, to determine noninferiority. RESULTS: This study is scheduled to begin in August 2024 and has not yet recruited any participants. The study will be conducted over 2 years, from August 2024 to July 2026. Each participant will have 2 follow-up visits at 6-month intervals, making the total follow-up period 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Since 2022, the introduction of OTC HAs has revolutionized access to these devices. Researchers, clinicians, and the general public are keen to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of OTC HAs, as more individuals will likely use them for HL. This increased usage will provide valuable real-world data to understand the benefits and limitations of OTC HAs. Monitoring the outcomes and user feedback will provide insights into their effectiveness and impact on hearing rehabilitation. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/59894.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.034 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.066 | 0.008 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".